June 4, 2002

Movie Messups: Why Some Aren't Acceptable
Loremaster

Yes, I agree along with everyone else that the movie was a high quality film. The story was relatively similar and the scenery and music were well done, not to mention the special effects. But as i accept most of the changes made most likely for the interest of the non-readers. There are some things that were streched to the limit. of cours there are things that i though terribly important (such as Tom and the Barrow Downs). I can see how that may confuse the ones who are new to Tolkiens works. There were two things that are absurd and should offend any true fan of tolkiens works.
First of all i though that the way Frodo and the Wraiths in Hobbiton was rather a bad judgement on Jacksons part. To put it bluntly, no wraith on a horse (or off of one for that matter) is gonna let a hobbit get away like that. I am quite sure that that horse and possibly its rider could have leapt to the ferryjust as the hobbit did. Al the rider would need to do would be to knock the furry little hobbit in the water. The hobbit drownds and then another animal or being goes and gets the ring for Sauron. Also I imagine that if a hobbit were to startle a wraiths horse, the wraith would not let the ring escape as it did in the movie.
The last one has had a heated discussion in this forum. Arwen, I have heard all the complaints and all the praise of her in the movies. Simply put, SHE SHOULD NOT BE THERE! I was a little annoyed when i saw her there. But it was when i was thinking about what her introduction ment to the rest of the movie's that i started to be a bit angered. First, that debate about introducing and building a character so that the people would be familiar is a bad excuse for her being there. Putting her there is like eraseing what tolkien wrote and writing something that you think will make the public happy. Tolkien said he did not write it for the public, he wrote it for himself. so to say that his writing is flawed, or that it should have been written with this added, or that he was sexist is all plain dumb. It cant be called flawed unless Tolkien himself was to say it was flawed. If something should have been added then he would have added it. Lastly Back in those times women didnt do that, they stayed at home, because he wrote about what they thought back then does not mean he believes it it himself. I have also seen the arguement that it is better to replace the minor roles with her in order to build character. This is a contradictory statement because it is eraseing a minor role with another minor role, and if rumers be true, she is to appear in all movies. Which defeats the perpose of Aragorns task and place in the story. Aragorn was in this to not only reclaim th ekingdom, but it was a thing that Elrond told him to complete before he could spend time with Arwen. I think i have made my point, no matter how hard you make excuses, these two above all else should have been looked down upon, yet sadly some of you say that it made a story better. In wich the story was changed from what it was supposed to be